State v. Terrion
2011 Ohio 3800
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Terrion and wife Cherilyn's marriage deteriorated after bankruptcy and job stresses; they moved to Ohio and then to Terrion's parents' home.
- Terrion installed a keylogger, discovered Cherilyn's MySpace/Facebook and a personal ad, and confronted her about alleged infidelity.
- Cherilyn moved to her own apartment; the divorce was initially amicable but later proceedings stalled.
- Terrion began taking Zoloft and, after a series of communications, Cherilyn dismissed the divorce action.
- On April 29, 2009, Terrion brought a pistol with a silencer to Cherilyn's apartment, planning to gift it to her.
- During a confrontation, Terrion shot Cherilyn in the head; he later disposed of evidence and prepared for a standoff before being arrested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary manslaughter instructions were required | Terrion sought voluntary manslaughter as an inferior degree of murder. | Trial court should have given manslaughter instruction if provocation was reasonably sufficient. | No instruction required; provocation insufficient under Shane/Nelson. |
| Whether Goselin testimony was admissible and mistrial warranted | Goselin testimony would show wife's infidelity and support Terrion's state of mind. | Testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial under Evid.R. 401; mistrial not warranted. | Admissibility was proper; mistrial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992) (defines voluntary manslaughter as inferior to murder with provocation test)
- State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (1988) (elements of voluntary manslaughter differ; mitigation by provocation)
- State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d 593 (2000) (test for reasonable support for instruction on lesser offenses)
- State v. Nelson, 9th Dist. No. 20365 (2001) (adultery disclosures not enough for provocation; no manslaughter instruction)
- Taylor v. State, 39 Ohio St.3d 162 (1988) (trial court decides admissibility; abuse of discretion standard)
- Hale v. State, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to present defense)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 489 (1984) (relevance of evidence and due process standards in admissibility)